Be honest American Catholics

You know you are not waiting to be maried to have sex. You know that. So if you so against the abortion, but you still like to have sex when you not in marriage (you know this is true) why is so wrong for President Obama to want insurance to pay for birth control?
And please you can not say the girl is big whore to want to have sex, because you know you the males want that too.

"A dramatic new study with implications for next monthâs presidential election finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. Thatâs far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

The studyâs lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, expected both measures to fall, but even he said he was âvery surprisedâ by the magnitude.

In all, Peipert said, one abortion was prevented for approximately every 100 women who took part (the actual estimate is 1 per every 79 to 135 women).

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert asked the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.

âIt just has so many implications for our society,â he told NBC News.

Several factors contributed to the declines, he argued. First, a large majority of the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control pills.

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99 percent effective.

Second, program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls whoâve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.

Thatâs important because an IUD, including the device and the physicianâs service to place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many women.

James Trussell, a Princeton University professor of economics and public affairs and an expert in family planning called the results âterrific, great work, and a very important demonstration project.â

But itâs also politically fraught. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover contraceptive costs. Thatâs led to conflicts among the Obama administration, the Catholic church, and the churchâs political allies who argue that requiring a Catholic employer to provide such insurance contradicts the churchâs teaching and represents a breach of religious freedom.

Conservatives have also objected to contraceptive coverage on cost grounds. Some have focused their anger at Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who agitated for the Catholic school to offer an insurance plan that covers contraception. Radio host Rush Limbaugh famously called her a âslutâ and a âprostitute.â

But experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money.

According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year.

âThe way I look at it as a gynecologist with an interest in womenâs health and public health and family planning, is that this saves money,â Peipert said. âWhen you provide no-cost contraception, and you remove that barrier, you finally reduce unintended pregnancy rates. It doesnât matter what side one is on politically, thatâs a good thing.â

The Catholic Church is unlikely to be moved. âIf, as supporters of the contraceptive mandate argue, it will pay for itself in reduced medical expenses, so will free embryo engineering and other eugenic services, including infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and genetic manipulation,â wrote Thomas Joseph White, director of the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and R.R. Reno, in the conservative journal First Things.

But to academic experts, the results of CHOICE are clear. âWhat the study suggests to me,â said John Santelli, professor at Columbia Universityâs Mailman School of Public Health, âis that itâs totally supportive of the presidentâs provisions on reproductive care and preventive services for women in the Affordable Care Act.â

In a 2009 study, Trussell and colleagues reported that long-acting contraceptives like IUDs were far cheaper than an unintended birth, an abortion, and especially an ectopic pregnancy.

Trussell argued that cost savings go âwell beyondâ those immediate medical savings. They donât, for example, take into account costs associated with longer term issues such as economic stress on the mother and family, a teenager who doesnât finish high school or skips college because sheâs had a baby.

Research has also shown that neglect, stress, anxiety, or simply a low level of nurturing in early life has effects on a child that can last far into adulthood. It may influence, for example, the cycle of teen pregnancy and crime.

âItâs hard to imagine how politicians wouldnât like to spend a dollar to save four,â Trussell said. As to the objections like those of White, he concluded that âit makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of your views on abortion, virtually everybody says preventing unintended pregnancies is smart.â

You know you are not waiting to be maried to have sex. You know that. So if you so against the abortion, but you still like to have sex when you not in marriage (you know this is true) why is so wrong for President Obama to want insurance to pay for birth control?

More...

Every now and then I want a Five Guys burger with the works. Undercooked a bit, extra juicy. With fries and a coke.

Eating it is heaven. Positively delicious. Costs about $10. If I got the extra 10, and I get the urge, then I go for it. If my funds are short, then I pass on it and make a cheese sandwich at home. Not as good, but takes care of the hunger.

I don't expect or ask for anyone else to pay for an ecstatic moment of pure gastronomical bliss.

Every now and then I want a Five Guys burger with the works. Undercooked a bit, extra juicy. With fries and a coke.

Eating it is heaven. Positively delicious. Costs about $10. If I got the extra 10, and I get the urge (hunger), then I go for it. If my funds are short, then I pass on it and make a cheese sandwich at home. Not as good, but takes care of the need.

I don't expect or ask for anyone else to pay for an ecstatic moment of pure gastronomical bliss.

a fair question...asked in a reasonable manner.
I will give you a reasonable answer which many Catholics who go to church regularly might agree with.

a catholic might examine his conscience and determine he will only have premarital sex if he is willing to marry the women or raise the child. After all its not easy abstaining when women are running around in tight little yoga outfits.

or if using contraceptives... a person might chose birth control which would never result in an abortion / homicide. you will note many forms of birth control like the pill can cause abortions.

Catholics who go to church regularly eventually become very concerned about their actions. You can only go around kidding yourself for a while.

Many catholic struggle with the birth control issue. There is no way Catholics want the govt telling us what to do on this issue. Its a matter with our Maker not Obama.

You know you are not waiting to be maried to have sex. You know that. So if you so against the abortion, but you still like to have sex when you not in marriage (you know this is true) why is so wrong for President Obama to want insurance to pay for birth control?
And please you can not say the girl is big whore to want to have sex, because you know you the males want that too.

"A dramatic new study with implications for next monthâs presidential election finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. Thatâs far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

The studyâs lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, expected both measures to fall, but even he said he was âvery surprisedâ by the magnitude.

In all, Peipert said, one abortion was prevented for approximately every 100 women who took part (the actual estimate is 1 per every 79 to 135 women).

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert asked the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.

âIt just has so many implications for our society,â he told NBC News.

Several factors contributed to the declines, he argued. First, a large majority of the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control pills.

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99 percent effective.

Second, program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls whoâve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.

Thatâs important because an IUD, including the device and the physicianâs service to place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many women.

James Trussell, a Princeton University professor of economics and public affairs and an expert in family planning called the results âterrific, great work, and a very important demonstration project.â

But itâs also politically fraught. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover contraceptive costs. Thatâs led to conflicts among the Obama administration, the Catholic church, and the churchâs political allies who argue that requiring a Catholic employer to provide such insurance contradicts the churchâs teaching and represents a breach of religious freedom.

Conservatives have also objected to contraceptive coverage on cost grounds. Some have focused their anger at Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who agitated for the Catholic school to offer an insurance plan that covers contraception. Radio host Rush Limbaugh famously called her a âslutâ and a âprostitute.â

But experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money.

According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year.

âThe way I look at it as a gynecologist with an interest in womenâs health and public health and family planning, is that this saves money,â Peipert said. âWhen you provide no-cost contraception, and you remove that barrier, you finally reduce unintended pregnancy rates. It doesnât matter what side one is on politically, thatâs a good thing.â

The Catholic Church is unlikely to be moved. âIf, as supporters of the contraceptive mandate argue, it will pay for itself in reduced medical expenses, so will free embryo engineering and other eugenic services, including infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and genetic manipulation,â wrote Thomas Joseph White, director of the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and R.R. Reno, in the conservative journal First Things.

But to academic experts, the results of CHOICE are clear. âWhat the study suggests to me,â said John Santelli, professor at Columbia Universityâs Mailman School of Public Health, âis that itâs totally supportive of the presidentâs provisions on reproductive care and preventive services for women in the Affordable Care Act.â

In a 2009 study, Trussell and colleagues reported that long-acting contraceptives like IUDs were far cheaper than an unintended birth, an abortion, and especially an ectopic pregnancy.

Trussell argued that cost savings go âwell beyondâ those immediate medical savings. They donât, for example, take into account costs associated with longer term issues such as economic stress on the mother and family, a teenager who doesnât finish high school or skips college because sheâs had a baby.

Research has also shown that neglect, stress, anxiety, or simply a low level of nurturing in early life has effects on a child that can last far into adulthood. It may influence, for example, the cycle of teen pregnancy and crime.

âItâs hard to imagine how politicians wouldnât like to spend a dollar to save four,â Trussell said. As to the objections like those of White, he concluded that âit makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of your views on abortion, virtually everybody says preventing unintended pregnancies is smart.â

Every now and then I want a Five Guys burger with the works. Undercooked a bit, extra juicy. With fries and a coke.

Eating it is heaven. Positively delicious. Costs about $10. If I got the extra 10, and I get the urge, then I go for it. If my funds are short, then I pass on it and make a cheese sandwich at home. Not as good, but takes care of the hunger.

I don't expect or ask for anyone else to pay for an ecstatic moment of pure gastronomical bliss.

More...

lets put aside the emotional issue and use our head to think. it makes good business sense for the government to spend $10 now to avoid $100000 of welfare bebefits in the future.
isnt that what we want our government to be? intelligent. we want them to use scientific data to look at these problems and take the best course of action to solve problems? i would assume even you would agree that welfare spending is out of control?

Gee I always thought the term "Birth Control" was a little misleading. The bill goes way past the normal contraceptive measures - preventing conception, most find it offensive because it also requires payment for the morning after pill, which to some it would be requiring and funding abortion.

Gee I always thought the term "Birth Control" was a little misleading. The bill goes way past the normal contraceptive measures - preventing conception, most find it offensive because it also requires payment for the morning after pill, which to some it would be requiring and funding abortion.

Aborting unwanted pregnancy, call it what it is, euthanasia.

Obamacare has opened the floodgates.

More...

Who really knows whats in the bill, they certainly didn't read it when voted upon, and more and more offensive regulations are found every day.... I wonder if there's any provisions for funding planned parenthood... the #1 Abortion Promoting identity in the world?